Well of course you're going to get an overwhelming majority voting "no". When you endorsed Obama in '08 as well other manifestations of leaning left, you scared away your readership who would have voted "yes"!

Well of course you're going to get an overwhelming majority voting "no". When you endorsed Barack Obama in '08 as well other manifestations of leaning left, you scared away your readership who would have voted "yes"!

It is flawed to think that the price for a good or service should be reflective of the benefit you get from it.

If you and a friend go out to eat dinner and order the same meal, but your buddy hasn't eaten lunch and is starving, should he have to pay more for his dinner because it benefits him more? Or should a man dying of thirst have to pay his life savings for a bottle of water while you pay a dollar? It certainly benefits him more than you.

By definition pricing a good or service according to individual benefit received would completely eliminate consumer surplus.

The argument that the rich should pay more tax because the government benefits them more than the poor has no foundation in economic thought. You cannot price according to benefit.

I'm not sure what is unclear. You're reading the economist so I assume you're familiar with consumer surplus. Like I said, pricing according to benefit would by definition eliminate consumer surplus, which is a effectively a measure of benefit to the consumer. If you price something so that it accounts for the benefit, what you are doing is eliminating the benefit for that person by pricing it out. The only reason we trade is to increase overall surplus, and that is done by slightly reducing producer surplus in exchange for greatly increasing consumer surplus. Implementing a policy in the reverse direction makes no economic sense.

I wish I could link to an article, but for some reason it won't let me post this comment with a link.

On the other hand, he should be willing to pay more in order to keep the restaurant in business, even if that means that you go elsewhere (or eat at home). If he can get his meal for less than he is willing to pay, that's a benefit to him.

Six members of the Walton family (Wallmart) have a combined net value equivalent to the poorest 30% of the USA (90 million people), all because they selected their dad wisely. That is simply insane.

Throughout history dynastic Rentier classes that accumulate wealth and income without productive effort have always been a destructive force that sap development and competitiveness of the country by squandering income on useless extravagance. This has frequently lead to failure of the state. Long term stability and success requires mechanisms to dissipate dynastic wealth accumulation. Effective taxes and (unavoidable) death duties are needed.

The answer is Yes. I question where all the money goes, it is not just infrastructure that we pay money for, but also, to nearly every country, and hand outs, here and abroad. As for SS and Medicare, the government took money designated for each account and spent it. They have also taken money from roads and just about every other good cause tax payers agree are necessary.

The real problem with more tax money to the government to pay off our debt, is that they have a history of spending it, instead of paying the bill!

The "rich" are always a convenient pinata for politicians. But the facts are clear. In the US, the top 1% of income earners grab about 40% of all income earned. That's a lot of cash. However, that 1% group also pays more than 60% of all the taxes paid. That's also a lot of cash. The important thing to remember is that tax rates are not so important as tax receipts, and tghe 1% seems, to me at least, to being paying their "fair share." And, then some.

If they would bother sharing some of that wealth with their employees then they wouldn't have to shoulder the burden alone.

That fact is that nice things cost money. A nice car costs more than a cheap car, a nice bottle of wine costs more than a cheap bottle of wine. And a nice country costs more as well. So if the rich want to live in a nice country then they had better start putting up more cash, otherwise they can move to Guatemala to catch a glimpse of the future.

My gut reaction is to vote Yes simply to differentiate myself from all the crazy "TAX THE RICH" occupy goons but I think that in the situation in which we find ourselves now, taxing the rich (and by rich I mean wealthy with incomes above $500,000, not working families with combined incomes of $215,000) is necessary as one of many ways to reduce our debt. The debt is not going to pay itself off, and those whose quality of life simply will not be affected by paying slightly more taxes until our budget is balanced are very fitting sources of revenue. However, it is clear that we cannot tax our way out of debt, and it would be extremely unfair to enact higher taxes on the rich without instituting broad cost-cutting measures elsewhere in government. I hate the idea of taxing the rich significantly higher simply because they make more, so I would hope the taxes would be accordingly lowered once our economy has returned to a stable position, but we are in such a predicament at this point that I view higher taxes on the richest of the rich as a necessary, but not permanent, measure.

Please elaborate. I think it is one of many changes that must be enacted until we get out of the budget crisis , but it is not something I consider ideal for the long term if the rest of government spending is in order. We can get back to the point where their taxes don't need to be higher than they are now, and maybe could even be lower, but at this point the money needs to come from somewhere.

There is NOTHING to elaborate. Eliminate the redistribution vote buying spending and the "debt crises", "deficit crises","job crises", "housing crises", "stagnation malaise" and any other economic malady being talked about disappears: just like that! What don't you understand? Maybe you don't want to understand that the solution is very simple but difficult to implement because of attitudes of the government should do everything your thinking exemplifies completely!

The notion that the wealthy should not be penalised for their prosperity is unsound. It is not a simple question of paying for the direct services they receive from the governments (roads, schools). The relevant question is that of benefits; they get a larger slice of the economic pie - they benefit more from their membership in the society than the poor, and their tax rate should be commensurate with these benefits.

More importantly, inequality is potentially debilitating to an economy. At the top end, the fortunate have money to speculate recklessly; at the bottom, lack of opportunity festers social unrest, and political pressure for cheap credit as a palliative attracts this speculative investment (to great detriment as illustrated by the GFC).

Increasing the tax rate for the rich is an obvious first step towards a more equal (or at least, less unequal) society, partially ameliorating this chasmic economic and social distortion, however should ultimately be regarded as a short term solution to this end - a revamp of the education system in particular is required.

'Equal opportunity' is a convenient fiction with very little substantive value in today's society - being at the bottom is a self-propagating cycle, passing down from generation to generation. The only way to achieve significant and meaningful equal opportunity is by reducing the disparity between the extremely rich and the extremely poor (as opposed to total equality of income). The difference between a good education and a poor education - a huge component in the pursuit of 'equal opportunity' - is significant. Which pathway a student takes is closely and unfortunately related to their socio-economic status.

No I'm not implying that they receive no benefits from the government. Perhaps better wording is that the tax rate should 'reflect' the benefits. I suggest that the existing tax rate does not reflect the benefits they receive (although I concede that this is an inherently normative statement, subject to personal values). And I see no inconsistency if this reasoning is extended to the poor - although they do receive benefits, this must be viewed in light of the very reasonable policy to ensure an economic 'floor' for all. The better off they are, the less welfare they are entitled to until this reaches zero and income becomes taxable.

"being at the bottom is a self-propagating cycle, passing down from generation to generation"

This is untrue. More than half the people in a given quintile change quintiles from generation to the next in the US. in other countries, namely those with less restrictive markets (denmark, norway, canada) more 80% of people in a quintile move.

"I suggest that the existing tax rate does not reflect the benefits they receive"

Some general points -
1. Social mobility reflects the equality of opportunities.
2. The degree of inequality (and quality of education) is a strong determinant of social mobility.
3. 'Parental or socio-economic background influences descendants’ educational, earnings and wage outcomes in practically all countries for which evidence is available.'

It went on to conclude that the US had less social mobility than, incidentally, all the countries you cited. This position seems to prevail in much of the literature on the subject. You mentioned earlier that the country is based on equal opportunity - this is untrue.

(As a side note the same report found that 'redistributive and income support policies are associated with greater intergenerational social mobility.') The way to restore the US' status as a land of equal opportunity then is clear: economic equality.

Also the second of your quotes pertained to the rich people, who are in fact taxed.

Yes that's the study I was looking at. I can't tell if you agree or disagree with me, you say the study is contrary, but then you repeat my comment.

I said that the US has more than 50% mobility and other countries who are less restrictive have even better mobility, upwards of 80%, as the study shows.

So the second quote does not pertain to the poor? I believe that it is even more applicable to the poor than the rich, since the poor do not pay taxes at all, yet receive benefits. Therefore "the tax rate does not reflect the benefits recieved".

The intrinsic value may be different to either party, but that is not relevant to price. A hamburger does not cost more to a hungry man than a full man, even though the hungry man benefits more. Neither should government services cost more to a rich person than a poor person, even if one party benefits more.

You really undermine your arguement by saying things like this. 51% may pay no "income tax" -- which is neither the same as paying no tax or even the same as paying no tax on income. Those "payroll taxes" have that name for a reason. They are taxes on pay, which is to say or income. It may be possible to earn so little that the EITC equals the payroll tax, but way fewer than 51% manage that.

Make taxes simple and easy to understand and we wont have a problem. Automatically deducted from the payroll or profit transactions. No more forms or accounting tricks. Your first $20k is zero tax and then goes up from their.

Also drop all other use taxes on gas or telephones and do a national sales tax. Wealthy people buy more than poor people and will pay more taxes. Dont tax food and clothing under $50 per item. Want to help a certain class or support behavior, have the government cut checks to them instead of the complex deduction system. T

ax evasion would be gone and the need to police it would be gone. Raise taxes on all and they will all care about how it is spend and who represents them.

My answer is YES. An equal opportunity society can only be fostered by the state - this means it canonly be done through taxes. Taxing the richer at higher rate than the poorer brings a positive feedback system (where money atracts money not only through normal channels but also because it buys influence and can dsitort society and politics favoring the wealthy even more) to a balance.

And, BTW, an equal opportunity society only exists if everyone has access to BASIC health services and if a state sponsered high education (college) is accessible to all through merit based (mainly but not exclusively) on academic performance.

Agent Goon - you are right - I meant NO (ie. the rich should pay MORE taxes). Thanks for the correction.

Sorry about quick fingering and not reviewing what I wrote, hopefully the text of the comment makes that clear. I see the state mainly as a provider of basic services and assurer of equal opportunities for all and for that you need money and mechanisms that limit how the power of too much can be used by (very rich) individuals.

In America, clearly everybody pays too much tax, and the same argument goes for most of Europe as well.

Therefore, the question is flawed. But in a broader statement: I believe everybody should pay the same tax in sales (which is universally adopted) and in income (which exists almost nowhere). Make a xx% income tax and let everybody be treated equally without discrimination. Everything else is nothing but a subsidy to tax consultants.

Those who believe that the RICH are NOT paying enough taxes, are never able to explain the level of confiscation of wealth and income they would consider to be "fair" or at least adequate. The question is a loaded and biased one and is the equivalent of asking whether there are too many white males in good jobs or too many black football star seven digit plus earners!

Yes Panama has rich people. The owner of Copa Airline make 200 millions dolaras in 2010, we paid a lot of taxes income tax, property tax, sell tax, 7% tax of service and merchandise, capital gaing tax and others.

On the other hand, those who insist that the should pay lower taxes never explain what level of taxes they think is appropriate. Was taxation horrible in the 1950s, when the economy was booming? (Hint, the top rate was 90% and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as other income.) Or was the rate correct at some other time, as it came down? Or is it still too high?

0% until government is reduced to its "core" functions of national defense, police, Courts, public roads and works, and that's it! Any social benefits should be charged to those receiving them at market rates unless hardship and inability to pay is established with reasonable certainty. Any taxes based on the above standards should be imposed at a flat rate with deductions limited to personal maintenance of self and legal dependents at standard rates.

Given the size of the current deficit, you are essentialy calling for the government to go bankrupt in order to get it to cut back. If you are willing to accept the problems that that would entail, fine. But I rather doubt that you could get much agreement on that.

Or do you have a transition strategy that I've just not picked up on? One that you think you can convince the bulk of the population to go along with. I'd love to hear it.

The current deficit and all other rationalizations for confiscation of property and income would vanish with amazing speed if the principles I referred to in my previous post were followed. Redistribution based vote buying is always going to cause "problems" whose only alleged solution is more redistribution based vote buying. Enough already.

I think the ideal way of looking at taxes (I mean without being hypocritical) is to take something like 5% of one's every year earnings, plus a much larger amount of taxes whenever one buys anything that is not absolutely essential to life (other than food), like housing, heating, water, and eventually healthcare. This sales tax can be 20-25%. This way people won't try so hard to hide their earnings and they will do a great deal of investing, which helps create jobs.

Taxes are payment for government services and should be the same for everyone using the services. Rich people don't use government services more than others and shouldn't have to pay any more than anyone else.

Correspondingly, the 51% of US citizens that don't pay taxes should not be allowed use of government services: public schools, roads, fire department, police, etc., since they do not pay for them.

Your argument assumes that the only beneficiaries of government services are the people who use them directly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Roads aid commerce, police and fire departments promote public safety. The wealthy benefit from commerce more than the 51% who pay no taxes, and public safety benefits the wealthy more than the 51%, since the wealthy have more to lose.

The wealthy should be paying more, because they benefit the most from the country we live in.

I don't understand your argument. You say that the people who benefit most from government services are the wealthy, who are paying for those services. It's a good point, but doesn't relate to my argument.

I agree that the wealthy benefit more, but the poor still benefit massively from government services. My problem is that they are not paying for the services; the wealthy are paying for them.

I don't understand the argument that the wealthy, who are already paying far, far, far more than the median price should be forced to pay even more.

Unless you believe that the value of government services to the wealthy is equal to around $300,000 a year, while the value of government services to the poor is equal to $0 or less, since many are on welfare.

I don't believe that the difference is government value between rich and poor is more than a 15% premium. The current premium is absurd.

The difference in the value of government to the rich and the poor [i]is[/i] the difference between the rich and the poor.

The poor benefit just enough to scrape by on the public dole, while the wealthy benefit to the tune of their entire fortune.

The wealthy in this country have had success here for a reason, and that reason isn't just because the wealthy work harder, or smarter than the rest of the population, though that is part of it. It's also due to the fact that the country in which they work and live creates a stable environment, with a high enough standard of living to support their successes.

The fact that the poor don't pay much for government services isn't an issue. They're poor, and have no money with which to pay taxes anyway. The poor receive aid because without aid you risk social unrest. And social unrest is bad for everyone, including the wealthy.

The wealthy benefit from commerce more than the 51%?? The question you need to ask is how did these people become wealthy?? Last time I checked, it was by providing goods and services that benefit the rest of society. That's how capitalism works, and those who make millions by coming up with goods that others want should not be penalized by a higher tax rate

That's a credible argument. I disagree with it, but it makes sense from a different perspective.

I disagree on two points, the first is that the wealthy should pay off the poor so they don't mutiny against an unjust system where they have no opportunity. This makes sense in a monarchy, but in a free market system everyone has a generally equal chance to become wealthy, the is really no reason to complain. Socio-economic mobility within a lifetime is quite high in the US. Less than 10% of people in the lowest 20% stay there their entire lives.

Second, goods and services aren't priced on the indirect value they give to an individual. If you go get a haircut and have a job interview the next day, they don't charge you more because it indirectly benefits you more than an average customer. Government services are just like any other service. Just because the wealthy indirectly benefit more doesn't mean the price should change on the actual service.

In any case, even if this wasn't true, a service shouldn't be completely free for some people and incredibly expensive for others. And the vote is on whether we should make it even more expensive for those people, which I can't see the logic of.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for a pleasant debate. The Internet is far too full of empty rhetoric, and I appreciate your well-thought responses.

I would counter your two points with the following:

First, while economic mobility is much higher in the US than it ever was under a monarchy, poor is still poor. The chance to escape poverty is one of capitalism's greatest strengths, but the fact remains that poor people will always be a part of a capitalistic society, and it's better for the society as a whole if the poor are taken care of.

Second, I agree that goods and services aren't priced on their indirect value. But the fact that indirect costs and benefits aren't baked into the price of something does not mean they don't exist. Of course, the reason they aren't baked into the price is because it's very difficult to measure indirect costs and benefits, and today's financial accounting make it almost impossible to quantify those externalities in any meaningful way.

I would actually argue that it is the government's responsibility to try to assign some kind of cost to these externalities through taxation.

It's not the poor that aren't paying enough for the little bit they receive, it's the wealthy who are not paying enough for all the success this country affords them.

PANAMA, Sovereign Rating BBB
The Panamanian economy will grow by around 6% to 7% in 2012, which presents a strong growth, considering the economic and fiscal crisis through Europe and the U.S.. The main factors contributing to this new boom period continued Panamanian economy is the expansion of public expenditure, which involves government investment and the Panama Canal Authority by order of U.S. $ 6.000 billion by 2012 . Also, the diversification of the Panamanian economy, which means that when a sector is contracting other leading growth.
Right now almost all areas of the economy are growing, the most dynamic mining and quarrying, construction and commercial communication. Agriculture, manufacturing and domestic services are at the bottom, while fishing is the only one that decreases.
The results support the banking boom of the Panamanian economy, as nearly all productive activities increase in demand for credit to an absolute increase of 14%. The greatest need is from the industry (28.4%), trade (26.2%) and the public sector (13%).

It is not possible for anyone to determine whether or not anyone, let alone the rich, are paying enough taxes, because every government suffers from an economic calculation problem. Because governments do not compete to supply services for consumers, governments have no way of determining whether or not they are charging enough in taxes to supply its services. Unless one has super-natural powers of observation, no single person is capable of knowing whether a higher or lower tax will result in more or less effectiveness of the services of a particular government. Thus, taxation of the rich is not a matter of the benefit to society, but is a matter of punishing the rich for their wealth.

That's entirely false. When you have concentrated power at the top of society things fall apart. We don't need to tax the rich to punish them, we need to tax the rich to prevent them from punishing us. Who do you think pays for all these multi-million dollar campaigns for President, Senate and even the Congress-person level?

The only people who actually have representation in Washington are the rich, whether that be Big Oil, George Soros, or the Defense Industry. Big Money does whatever it wants regardless of its political leanings. This is because only concentrated wealth has the power to influence who sits in positions of power. Taxation of the rich is required to check their power. As other posters have noted, a lot of the money is wasted any way. Taxing the rich is an end in itself.

Witness the sorry state of our politics and the abominations that are "Super-PACs" and you can see we are losing this country. I guess that's cool with you though.

Let's assume that the wealthy are the cause for government crushing the non-wealthy. Who is to blame for this order of "crushing"?

The non-wealthy are automatically disqualified from any blame, since they are the victims.

The wealthy have money and the desire for the non-wealthy to be crushed. Desire and money are not equivalent to violence, so we must turn our attention elsewhere.

Certainly, the government must receive some blame, being the organisation that actually does the crushing. The wealthy have then decided that the government is the best means to crush the non-wealthy, instead of some private army or enormous band of thugs. The government is an extremely cheap means of violence, because the non-wealthy contribute to their own crushing. Obviously, the wealthy are able to avoid any violence from the government, because they have captured the government's power.

However, the wealthy are eyed with suspicion, thus if they were to pay for an army on their own to do violence to the non-wealthy, then the non-wealthy would rise up with a common enemy and crush the wealthy. This is why the wealthy seek another means of doing violence to the non-wealthy.

The government has the moral, ethical, and legal capacity to do violence that none of the wealthy have. Further, the non-wealthy believe that the violence of the government is good, which is why they submit to the demands of government. The violence of government is a tool for the wealthy to whatever ends. The wealthy are powerless to have violence applied to the non-wealthy without government.

If the wealthy have indeed captured the power of government, then won't any attempts by the government to crush the wealthy be thwarted by the powers of the wealthy? Thus, the government is eternally at the will of those with wealth, and never at the will of those without wealth.

Thus, it follows that the government cannot be the means to ending the violence of government against the non-wealthy. I wish for government violence to end entirely, but you seem to favor a mere reversal of the present order.

You appear to wish to turn the violence of government from the non-wealthy towards the wealthy. But, I guess your cool with that.

No, I'm not cool with that, and I agree that violence/coercion by the government against its own citizens is not to be encouraged. In fact, your analysis is spot on, why would the elite release the reigns of power. When has that ever happened?

As to what I prefer, I'd prefer more evenhandedness over a good "rich crushing." Hell, I think my dad, and most definitely my stepdad, would be considered 1%ers. I don't want a pitch fork party on their lawns.

What I'd prefer is a broadening of the middle class over further concentration of wealth at the top, which is an inherently unstable economic situation. I'm not crazy about help directly to the poor. There will always be poor folks. We should just try to keep that number as low and as manageable as possible (easier said than done), but it should never be our primary focus.

What scares me is that I'm afraid the Constitution may no longer be able to counter the tyranny of the day. The Constitution was drafted in reaction to an over taxing, over reaching King of England, the tyranny of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's day. It was drafted to prevent tyranny by playing the centers of power off against one another. It was reshaped after the Civil War to ensure that local tyrannies might be abolished and all Americans might enjoy its protections. Not all Americans received that protection until recently (ie: the civil rights movement, arguably an on-going struggle/work in progress).

However, now that money is considered speech and corporations people, the concentration of power will move towards those with the money to buy the kind of soft-violence you recognize. The new tyranny does not come from the barrel of a musket, the point of a bayonet, or the lash of a slave drivers whip but from the tyranny of unregulated, unidentified, unaccountable million dollar checks.

Campaign finance reform and changing the capital gains tax structure is hardly a revolution, but if we don't address some of these things now, we might be in trouble, and shortly. Unfortunately, the USSC has introduced so much rigidity to the question of money in politics that a Constitutional amendment or a revolution might be the only remedy. Sweet.

No, I'm not cool with that, and I agree that violence/coercion by the government against its own citizens is not to be encouraged. In fact, your analysis is spot on, why would the elite release the reigns of power. When has that ever happened?

As to what I prefer, I'd prefer more evenhandedness over a good "rich crushing." Hell, I think my dad, and most definitely my stepdad, would be considered 1%ers. I don't want a pitch fork party on their lawns.

What I'd prefer is a broadening of the middle class over further concentration of wealth at the top, which is an inherently unstable economic situation. I'm not crazy about help directly to the poor. There will always be poor folks. We should just try to keep that number as low and as manageable as possible (easier said than done), but it should never be our primary focus.

What scares me is that I'm afraid the Constitution may no longer be able to counter the tyranny of the day. The Constitution was drafted in reaction to an over taxing, over reaching King of England, the tyranny of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's day. It was drafted to prevent tyranny by playing the centers of power off against one another. It was reshaped after the Civil War to ensure that local tyrannies might be abolished and all Americans might enjoy its protections. Not all Americans received that protection until recently (ie: the civil rights movement, arguably an on-going struggle/work in progress).

However, now that money is considered speech and corporations people, the concentration of power will move towards those with the money to buy the kind of soft-violence you recognize. The new tyranny does not come from the barrel of a musket, the point of a bayonet, or the lash of a slave drivers whip but from the tyranny of unregulated, unidentified, unaccountable million dollar checks.

Campaign finance reform and changing the capital gains tax structure is hardly a revolution, but if we don't address some of these things now, while they are still fixable, we might be in trouble. Unfortunately, the USSC has introduced so much rigidity to the question of money in politics that a Constitutional amendment or a revolution might be the only remedy. Sweet.

I'd say that I'm probably not qualified to say whether or not the rich pay enough taxes. However, supply-side economics as an article of faith needs to be killed off. Perhaps there's a shred of truth to it somewhere, but supply-side economics has been abused by the Republicans to an overwhelming extent. There's a huge mismatch in the sheer amount of blind faith in this doctrine and the miniscule amount of evidence supporting it. Moreover, any society that tells itself that the rich need to get richer in order for everyone else to benefit will soon find that it values the rich more than the rest.

As someone wrote the other day, the purpose of supply side was to regain control of capitalism and to fight inflation for a system with economic growth. Naturally, the capitalist establishment had to kill it at the first available opportunity. Imo, they used the global competition argument to kill domestic competition and establish domestic oligopolies. As a result, we got too big to fail.

Have you seen the size of the demand subsidies, excuse me, entitlements in the US Federal budget? What supply-side doctrine are we supposedly adhering to?

People who are too rich are a drag on society? If the money was fairly and productively earned, how can that be? Maybe populism is more of a threat to the welfare of the common person than the great earned success of the most productive who got that way by taking good care of their customers and clients.

they are a drag on economics. Think of money cycling like the water cycle. If all the water just pooled into a giant lake and never left the entire cycle would cease to function.

Money is the same way, it must constantly circulate in order to sustain a healthy economy and wealthy people are the 'lakes'. When the money just pools there it doesn't do anything and it hurts the overall system. Now, the wealthy have the power to create floods which in an economic sense can be good thing, that is the idea behind supply side economics. Except that the wealthy aren't doing that, instead more and more money is just pooling, sitting idle.

Until that cash starts circulating again don't expect much from the economy.

Wealthy people aren't the lakes, they are the capital providers who create jobs. Why should anyone work and risk his or her money if small minded neo-Marxists like you are going to steal their success and give their wealth to vote buying and otherwise greedy politicians??

Why do I get the feeling that a majority of the people voting "no" do not live in the US or understand how our tax system works? The problems with our tax code are not predicated on leniency for the rich. The tax system is too harsh on the American middle class, particularly single people.

I come from a 1% working class family, and my parents are in the midst of making the leap to the asset class. I can assure everyone, their income is thoroughly obliterated every year by our tax system. After federal income, federal payroll, state income, property, sales, capital gains, and major excise taxes, they pay right around 50% of their income. America's working class are trying to stockpile wealth with after-federal-income-tax dollars so attacks launched against American billionaires (whose total wealth would barely cover the 2011 Federal deficit) would like end up as a crushing double tax on America's wealthy working class.

When I went out on my own, I discovered that young single middle-class males, earning roughly $43,000 per year (when company-side FICA is included), are also taxed like the rich. I paid roughly 11% effective Federal income, 14% effective FICA (like everyone under $106,800), about 2% state income, 2% sales, 2% property (imputed from rent payment), 2% excise/fees (gas tax, license, registration, telephone, airlines). Every year I was paying 30%-34% of my income as tax, while trying to retire school loans as well.

The tax system in the United States is a complete joke, and we waste inordinate amounts of time trying to hammer down the rich. In reality, the only people we hammer down are our fellow working class Americans (1% or not). Brass tacks, our obsession with income redistribution has created a system in which working class Americans can no longer make the leap into the asset class. Freshly minted 1% simply bang their heads on the class ceiling, and the established plutocracy entrenches itself even further. Higher income no longer entitles you to significantly higher take home pay, it merely alters your credit-worthiness, and helps Americans hang themselves from the gallows of loose credit.

The massive uppercuts we throw at socio-economic apparitions eventually land squarely on the jaw of another working-class American. We are supposed to be getting Americans out of the working class so we can export jobs, import talent, or perhaps, if we are really really good, create a class of people who are more obsessed with producing utility rather than wealth. Instead, we do moronic things like forcing overtaxed middle class citizens who can't afford healthcare to buy Cadillac public plans for retirees. Why? B/c it is beneath working class citizens to question whether or not a fellow working class is actually in need.

This kind of of us vs. them mentality is going to be the end of our nation. If you look at entitlement spending, the end will be here sooner rather than later.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I disagree that the notion that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes.

The tax system in the United States definitely hits the middle class the hardest, simply because the middle class is too wealthy to get any public assistance, but not wealthy enough to be able to be able to use any of the tax-advantaged vehicles available to the rich.

The battle is unearned, unrecognized, long-term-capital-gains vs. earned income. Unrecognized wealth is difficult to tax effectively and asset taxes are dangerous if you get them wrong so the US continues hammering its working class.

Who pays more taxes: A trust fund American who owns a $500,000 home and an investment portfolio that generates $50,000 in unearned income OR an American who was born with nothing and who pays their mortgage and school debts with a $180,000 income? One doesn't have to lift a finger, the other is likely busting his rear just to cover his current tax and debt obligations.

The US is fighting plutocracy by using the tax code to make sure that a majority of Americans will never be wealthy. Polls like this one exist b/c our income tax system doesn't tolerate working-class wealth.

I would argue that passive income should be taxed a higher rate than earned income. The current tax system in the US is completely backwards.

If anyone disagrees, and would be unhappy with a higher tax rate on passive income, I would be happy to trade my $500,000 salary taxed at 25% for your $50,000 of investment income taxed at 40%. Sure I've got less money, but I'm also not working 2400 hours a year.

If you go after rent, prices go up for working class renters. If landlords can't pass on the taxes, their credit situation worsens and default risk is increased.

If you go after royalties, the cost of everything from natural gas to books will increase. Intellectual property theft will probably continue to rise.

Dividends are already taxed at the corporate level so increasing double taxation will probably kill off dividends for publicly traded companies. It might solve the S-corp payroll tax dodging, but at what cost?

If you go after interest and pensions, you jeopardize retirement security, and you force seniors to lean on the federal government?

If you decide passive income is too difficult, and you veer into the world of capital gains, the problems become even more undesirable. Dividends imputed into the stock price have already been taxed, and since the market projects future earnings into a sort of contagion price premium, the federal government would actually be taxing future income if rates go up. Not to mention, capital gains rates make no adjustments for inflation. Taxing unrecognized gains is impossible, and violates almost everything we have studied about fair-taxation.

There are only two solutions, either give the American middle class the European socialism they are paying for, or give the money back to the working class and get corporation and federal employees off of the demand subsidy dole. Perhaps we need to do a little of both, but the US must be on guard against socialism b/c it doesn't mesh with our government or our culture. Obamacare is a perfect example. Started off as European socialism, but it ended up as a lobbyist's fantasy. They can control you no matter where you live, and they can force you to buy their products. Healthcare spending is still on its runaway escalator. Demand subsidies live on.

I'd make an argument for passive income to be tax higher than earned income, but I'll settle for having all income taxed at the same rate.

A dollar of interest income should be the same as a dollar of rental income, a dollar of rental income should be the same as a dollar of dividend income, and a dollar of dividend income should be the same as a dollar of wages.

I wouldn't do away with progressive taxation, but so long as all types of income are treated equally, the American tax system will be in a better place.

It's not a question of taxes...The problem is that the economy is slow because the majority who are average wage earners don't have enough cash to spend in U.S shops. Australians get $15.50 per hour minimum wage across all Australian States. The Aussie Dollar to U.S Dollar is about the same, so the wages Americans get that is 8 or 9 dollars per hour is far too low.

Raise the minimum wage and that will drain some of the wealth from the top elite fat cats, give more money to the majority, which will boost local shops and boost U.S State economies, rather than going on about taxes all the time.
More taxes will just end up in Government hands, and would not help the majority of average or low wage earners...
CAMPAIGN FOR INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGES, INCREASING IN INCREMENTS YEAR ON YEAR UNTIL IT REACHES THE AUSTRALIAN $15.50 PER HOUR...

There's the solution to sorting out the struggling people's woes, the end to the Occupy protests and will bring balance to the financial crisis, which is really a crisis for the average wage earners, not the fat cats...